CHARGE

At the request of Dr. Thomas McCoy, VP for Research, Creativity & Technology Transfer, Montana State University (MSU), ScienceWorks established and convened the ad hoc External Advisory Committee (EAC) for the Enhancement of Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) at Montana State University on February 1-2, 2012. The agenda of the meeting is found in Appendix 1. The EAC was asked to develop recommendations for faculty and administrators to better enable faculty, staff and students engaged in SBE research to become more competitive, better recognized nationally and internationally and reach their full potential as scholars. Specifically, the committee was charged to “identify, examine and recommend strategies for increasing research productivity and external support, given the context of SBE sciences research at MSU”. The detailed charge from Dr. McCoy is provided in Box 1.

Box1

This letter report, accompanied by the power point presentation (Appendix 2) is a result of the work of the six-member ad hoc committee following the 1.5 day meeting on February 2-3, 2012. The list of EAS members and their short bios are found in Appendix 3. The committee members were selected based on their strong credentials as leaders and visionaries within their respective fields, their extensive experience within academia, leadership in building interdisciplinary teams and programs, and knowledge of the U.S.

1

research enterprise. Several members were recommended by MSU faculty and administration. In addition, EAC members also provided white papers prior to the MSU workshop that highlight “best practices” for enhancing SBE and interdisciplinary research within their institutions (Appendix 4).

The EAC appreciates the opportunity to advise MSU’s efforts to enhance SBE research activities. We want to acknowledge the extensive preparation and background material provided to the EAS by Dr. Susanne C. Monahan, Associate Dean for Program and Curricular Development, College of Letters & Science and also Dr. Laura Black, Associate Professor in the College of Business and Dr. Linda Young, Chair of the Department of Political Science. We also are grateful for their organization of the Workshop and chairing of the sessions to ensure opportunities for open dialogue and interactions with all faculty, staff and administration. In addition, we thank Dr. Thomas McCoy and his staff, especially Audrey Thurlow and Linda LaCrone, for their assistance in organizing the MSU campus visit.

In conducting its review, the EAC was provided the following written information: 1) The SBE Sciences at Montana State University:  A Report to the SBE Sciences External Advisory Committee (this report was prepared following the August retreat) (Attachment 1); 2) KLO’s MEMO to Dr. McCoy outlining issues that may impact greater success in securing outside support based on feedback received from campus visit (Appendix 5) ; 3) OSP yearly expenditures from 2000-2010; 4) OSP Growth Chart from 1991-2011; 5) link to MSU Principal Investigator’s Guide: http://www.montana.edu/wwwvr/osp/FAFunds.html  and organizational charts of the Office of the President, Provost and VP for Research; and 6) MSU’s Mission and Core Themes documents prepared for the most recent accreditation cycle .

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

In deliberations following the 1.5 day site visit, the EAC began its assessment by first identifying strengths and opportunities at MSU for enhancing SBE external research funding:

Timing: There is an excellent opportunity given new leadership in the Offices of the President and Provost and that MSU is embarking on developing its new strategic plan for research, education, outreach and service. Moreover, the faculty recently voted for unionization and that process most likely will re-examine policies and practices.

Unique location: MSU’s location provides a diverse culture, geography, resources especially in the area of energy, ecology, and aesthetics. It also is home to seven tribal colleges, which provide outstanding opportunities for collaboration.

Commitment: Evidence is clear that there is strong enthusiasm and commitment by the administration and faculty to continue enhancing SBE activities and this was reflected in the perceived high morale of the participants.

Bottom up Approach: There are mechanisms for new ideas to be generated and executed as evidenced by the Institution of Ecosystems and planning for the Social Science Research Laboratory.

VP for Research Office: All agreed that this Office provides excellent support, skills, and motivation and is supporting the campus-wide effort to strengthen SBE research and education.

Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary: MSU has a strong foundation of support and commitment to enhancing opportunities for interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary research in its policies and practices, which are beginning to be extended even more towards SBE activities. This was clearly seen by

2

openness of SBE faculty to partnering across campus and of other departments and faculty to partnerships with SBE faculty.

Models: There are several excellent models or mechanisms for enhancing SBE research and education, including the College of Education, Health, and Human Development’s hiring of a senior research support position, the new MSU/University of Montana Institute for Ecosystems that utilizes strengths across Montana, the Agriculture extension network, and the Department of History’s strategic hires to enhance interdisciplinary collaborations.

The EAC also felt that it was important to consider their recommendations within the larger context including the federal arena, the state, and institutional culture. Within the federal landscape, there is an increased competition for research grants across all fields of science and engineering and success rates for receiving awards are not increasing. The ARRA funds were a one- time infusion of support for the federal agencies and funds must be spent by 2013. There is also a hiatus on congressionally directed research projects. Recently, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) released a new analysis that tries to quantify potential impacts on federal research and development budgets if the “sequester” (e.g. across- the- board cuts) are realized.

AAAS estimates suggest reductions in research funding of up to 12 percent below the current year and that nondefense research and development would receive a disproportionable amount of the decrease. The federal research agencies are looking towards new mechanisms for research support in an environment where their funding is remaining relatively flat or reduced. There is a growing emphasis on interdisciplinary research challenges and multi-institutional activities that clearly recognizes the social importance of the SBE sciences. Indeed many new research opportunities will necessitate collaboration given the widespread recognition of the importance of social and behavioral science to many fields of physical and natural sciences and engineering in tackling grand challenges for this nation and the world. The EAC also noted that changes at MSU must be considered within the overall state higher education strategy, plans and policies.

While the EAC was only present for several days, it recognized the importance of the institutional culture, which included a strong loyalty to the institution within the state of Montana. The strong grass roots efforts, willingness to help others, including the institution as a whole, to develop and achieve their goals, and strong commitment to group decision making were very evident. There was also a very strong support and enthusiasm for seamless inclusion of the tribal groups through research and education. However from these cultural values and trusts, it was also clear that many exciting activities are often fostered and driven by personal relationships and not by institutional policies and/or practices. Areas such as salary support from grants and buying out of courses to enhance external research opportunities are not entirely consistent across departments—a situation that can impact both moral and ability to enhance the research reputation of the institution.

OBSERVATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

The EAC identified several opportunities that, if addressed, could help provide the platform to ensure a more robust externally-supported research portfolio in the SBE area. While this report includes potential ways to address these observations, EAS strongly felt that the university leadership and faculty understands their culture and are best positioned to develop and implement the right mechanism to succeed.

Observation: MSU is in the process of developing the new strategic plan for the University.

3

The EAC believes that this provides a rare opportunity to enlist all of the stakeholders to incorporate a strong strategic vision whereby scholarly research and its integration with education and outreach are among the institution’s highest values and goals. Among issues that should to be addressed include: (1) what is the strategic vision; does it rest on the institutional strengths that provide foundation for achieving distinction among institutions of higher education?; (2) how to integrate research, education, and outreach to strengthen the academic enterprise and heighten its impact?; (3) definition of the research areas of strategic growth in keeping with the institution’s unique geographic location; (4) how to promote interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research, education, and outreach?

Recommendation: The new strategic plan should highlight research as an integral function of the University that enhances its educational mission both on and off campus, and university budget allocations should be consistent with the plan. A strong emphasis on SBE activities is also recommended. A long-term recruitment plan for faculty as retirements and resignations occur-- should be guided by the vision of the Strategic Plan.

The EAC felt that it was important not only to expand interdisciplinary opportunities for SBE scientists in existing research priorities but for SBE to be integrally involved with initiation of new and externally funded opportunities. We recognized several excellent models that have already proven effective. This includes practices within the Department of History and also the model being adopted within the new Institute of Ecosystems that expands not only across different departments but also institutions (e.g. MSU and UM).

Observation: The EAC agreed with the statement that MSU operates as two institutions. Within SBE disciplines, MSU resembles that of a 4-year liberal arts college while the other STEM disciplines operate as a research university. This is also reflected in that many of the SBE departments do not have graduate degree granting programs. Moreover, across MSU, the number of graduate students has not tracked or grown with the increase in research expenditures.

There also seems to be “firm” boundaries among some departments and schools that cause real or imagined barriers towards developing more externally supported research and interdisciplinary opportunities in research and teaching. Part of this culture results from the relatively small size of the SBE departments, which hinders ability to compensate for covering teaching and service and participation within MSU center activities.

Recommendations: The EAC believes that it is critical to define the expectations for scholarship for faculty in SBE areas both at the time of hire, during the tenure process, and post tenure review and to ensure that the resources and institutional flexibility are consistent with those expectations.

At the time of hire, newly appointed faculty should have a letter of hire that clearly outlines the research expectations of the position and also be provided a start-up package consistent with the expectations. Start-up packages are a means to enable and foster competitiveness for external research funds and may include not only research infrastructure, but also support for professional development, and appropriate flexibility in teaching to ensure research investments can payoff. There should be a clear policy on workload and commitment to the academic community for tenured faculty such that pre-tenure faculty do not carry a disproportionate share of responsibility, even though there may be valid individual differences in the distribution of research, instruction and service.

The Research Council should continue refining policies and procedures that enhance interdisciplinary research and education. For example, the mechanism of allocation of funding for teaching and number of students within a specific school or department was discussed by faculty as actually discouraging team teaching and curricular efficiency. Team teaching and curricular efficiency impact favorably on ability of

4

faculty to carry out scholarly research. MSU should consider how research centers could be integrated within the overall university structure. The role of graduate students and graduate student training should be addressed especially with respect to the research centers.

Observation: During the meeting, MSU participates noted that both faculty compensation and GA stipends are low and that collective bargaining negotiations provide a special opportunity to focus on workload issues.

Recommendations: Enhancement of externally funded SBE research by faculty may require a re-focus on workload and compensation issues. During the annual performance evaluation processes, faculty and staff should have the opportunity to negotiate changes in workload balance and salary compensation. While the EAC recognizes that teaching resources are spread thinly, ideas discussed above (e.g. team teaching and curricular efficiency) need to be considered to allow the opportunity for course buyouts, and consistently applied supplemental pay rules should provide appropriate and fair incentives for seeking external grant funding. Strong rationale could also be included within grant proposals to enable requests for funds to provide hiring of visiting scholars or provide opportunities for post doctoral fellows to teach. Compensation significantly below academic market averages is clearly a significant concern at MSU and one that can have very adverse impacts on the institution. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers in difficult budget environments; but EAC recognizes that no university can be great without great faculty. Great faculty are lost to other institutions when salary issues cannot be addressed, and those who remain and pay the “loyalty tax” lose motivation and inspiration.

Observation: There is no central SBE research laboratory.

Recommendations: The EAC recommends consideration is given for the development of a shared SBE core research laboratory. Planning of this laboratory for SBE faculty and students should consider a sustainable business model that enables state-of-the art research and teaching. The plan should include a wide range of innovative tools used by used by SBE scientists today (e.g. survey research, focus groups, sampling, GIS, large data base analysis, meta-analysis, crowd sourcing). It is equally important that it also look to the future opportunities and needs, especially in enhanced IT security and connectivity. Several universities have developed shared SBE laboratories and MSU is encouraged to learn from their successes. If possible, stable funding should underpin the salary of the laboratory director at least.

Observation: Bozeman Montana offers many advantages and challenges for SBE researchers and recruitment of faculty. Some of the challenges include difficulty in finding spousal positions, adjunct faculty with specific subject expertise, number of potential collaborators, and high cost of travel.

Recommendations: The EAC believes that it is important to consider the advantages of the unique geographic location when recruiting and hiring within specific SBE fields. For example, if a faculty candidate requires an ongoing large urban population to sample and study for his or her scholarly research, possibly MSU would not be the best fit for the scholarly research. Indeed, the potential of new hires to apply for externally funded resources to support their research plans should be an integral part of the discussion.

Faculty should be encouraged by the administration to take full advantage of Cooperative Extension infrastructure around the state for distributed research. Moreover, the realities of the location require building relationships with other institutions in and outside of the state. Mechanisms should be developed to encourage collaborations. Such collaborations are encouraged by federal funding entities and can enhance grant funding success.

5

Finally, MSU can adopt family-friendly practices and policies to enhance recruitment and retention including open searches, rewards for dual hires, and identify mechanisms to assist SBE scientists outside their work the university.

Observation: There are 7 Tribal Colleges within Montana and MSU has a strong tradition working with the tribal communities.

Recommendations: The EAC recommends considering the benefits and opportunities that may be associated with locating the MSU tribal liaison within the Office of the President. MSU should look to enhance programs and activities that engage these underrepresented groups in education and research. Those linkages can be an important source of academic distinctiveness.

Observation: NSF and NIH are the major providers of support for the SBE research activities.

Recommendations: The EAC believes that SBE researchers should to continue to cultivate NSF and NIH support for their research and education programs but should also expand their horizons for funding opportunities at other federal agencies including DoD, DHS, HRSA, USDA, NASA and others, when appropriate. It will be important for MSU administration to continue to provide funds for travel for potential PIs to meet the appropriate staff of the different funding agencies. We also recommend that MSU develops venues and opportunities (e.g. invited lectures) that bring representatives from the appropriate research agencies that support SBE research to the campus to meet faculty, staff, and students and to provide lectures on merit review, funding processes and opportunities within their agency. MSU should also consider implementing a formal mentorship program that provides advice and assistance from senior faculty that are leaders in their field, who serve on advisory and review panels and effectively secure external support, to assist other faculty members to succeed in the federal and state research arena. The EAC was impressed with the College of Education, Health, and Human Development’s hiring of a senior research support position to assist faculty members in federally funded research and this might be a model in other SBE areas as well. Finally, the University Foundation should be a full partner in enhancing SBE activities.

In summary, the EAC believes that faculty within the SBE schools and departments, along with the Office of the Vice President for Research, Creativity & Technology Transfer, have a strong commitment to increase externally supported research and will develop mechanisms that clearly strengthen their ability to reach their full potential as scholars.

6

Appendix 1

AGENDA

Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences External Advisory Committee Site VisitMontana State University

February 2-3, 2011

Note: Forums and sessions are open to the public.

Wednesday, February 1

Evening Dinner (time/location TBA) with EAC Chair Kathie Olsen for EAC members who have arrived

Thursday, February 2SUB 235

A focus on institutional issues

7:30 am Breakfast and informal welcome

8:00 Charge and orientation/overview of MSU, research mission and SBE role MSU participants: Tom McCoy (VP for Research), Martha Potvin (Provost) or designate, Internal Steering Committee (Sue Monahan-Sociology, Laura Black-Business, Linda Young-Political Science)

9:15 Expectations of faculty at a research-intensive university: A conversation with Deans and Department Heads about the opportunities for and challenges of funded research in their colleges and departmentsMSU participants: Deans/Associate Deans, Department Heads, Senior Faculty Designates

10:30 Incentivizing research: What’s working? What’s needed?Open forum

11:45 Lunch with SBE sciences Department Heads, Associate Deans and Designates

1:30 Role of graduate education in enhancing SBE sciences researchMSU participants: Representatives from Econ/Ag Econ, History, Psychology, Political Science, Education

2:45 Conducting SBE sciences research at MSU: Opportunities and challenges MSU participants: A panel organized around predominant methods of SBE research, and their opportunities and challenges: possibilities include

7

community-based participatory research, survey research, ethnography, secondary data analysis, experimental methods, evaluation research, archival, interviewing

4:00 Pre- and post-award barriers to conducting research at MSUOpen forum for SBE faculty

6:30 Dinner MSU Participants: Tom McCoy (VPR), Martha Potvin (Provost), Internal Steering Committee (Sue Monahan, Linda Young, Laura Black), key research leaders (to be confirmed—Bob Rydell-History, Allen Harmsen-MT INBRE, Cathy Whitlock-Institute on Ecosystems) (Montana Ale Works Grill Room)

Friday, February 3SUB 235

A focus on collaboration

7:30 Breakfast

8:00 Interdisciplinary successes and challenges at MSU: Lessons from what has worked and what hasn’tMSU Participants (to be confirmed): John Peters (Thermal Biology Institute), Allen Harmsen (MT INBRE), Liz Shanahan (Political Science), Laura Black (Business/Research Council)

9:15 Working with tribal communities: Opportunities and challengesMSU Participants (to be confirmed): Sara Young (MT INBRE), Suzanne Christopher (Center for Native Health Partnerships), Sherry Watson (AIRO), Bill Yellowtail (College of Education and Health and Human Development), Patty Holkup (Nursing), Jioanna Carjuzaa (Education)

10:30 Promising directions: Opportunities and challenges for cross-institutional, intra-departmental and regional, state and local collaborationsMSU Participants (to be confirmed): Cathy Whitlock (Institute on Ecosystems), the Sustainable Democracy Project (Political Science), Rehau House project (Engineering/Architecture), Steve Albert (Western Transportation Institute), Alison Harmon (Sustainable Food Systems), Kristin Intemann (Ethics Project)

11:45 Lunch and work time for the SBE External Advisory Committee

3:30 Plenary Panel: The EAC speaks to MSU

5:00 Adjourn

8

Appendix 2

9

10

11

12

Appendix 3Montana State University External Advisory Committee for

Social, Behavioral and Economic SciencesFebruary 2-3, 2012

Dr. H. Elliott AlbersRegents Professor of Neuroscience and Director of the Center for Behavioral NeuroscienceGeorgia State UniversityInstitute of NeuroscienceAtlanta, GA   30302-3966 Phone: 404-413-5346 Email: biohea@gsu.edu

Dr. Wendy BaldwinPresident/CEOPopulation Reference Bureau 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 520Washington, DC 20009Phone: (202) 939-5409Email: wbaldwin@prb.org Web: http://www.prb.org/

Dr. Nicole S. BallengerAssociate Provost, Office of Academic AffairsUniversity of Wyoming 1000 E. University Ave. Old Main 312 Laramie, WY 82071Phone: (307) 766-4286Email: nicoleb@uwyo.edu

Dr. Roberta BalstadSpecial Research Scientist, Earth Institute, Columbia University and Editor-in-Chief, Weather, Climate, and Society, American Meteorological Society, Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED)Columbia University 406 Schermerhorn Hall - MC 55011190 Amsterdam AveNew York, NY 10027Phone: 845-365-8988; 858-750-3400E-mail: roberta@ciesen.columbia.eduWeb: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu

Dr. Edith ParkerProfessor and DEO, Community and Behavioral Health and Director, Community Engagement Key Function, Institute for Clinical and Translational ScienceThe University of IowaCollege of Public HealthOffice:  E225A GHIowa City, IA   52242Phone: 319-384-5383E-mail: edith-parker@uiowa.edu

Dr. Leslie P. TolbertVice President for Research University of Arizona601 Administration BldgTucson, AZ   85721 Phone: (520) 621-3513 Email: tolbert@email.arizona.edu

Dr. Kathie L. Olsen, ChairFounder, Managing Director of ScienceWorks, LLC101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Suite 675 EastWashington, DC 20001Phone: 202-524-9580Email: kolsen@scienceworksdc.comWeb: www.scienceworksdc.com

13

Montana State University External Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences

February 2-3, 2012

Dr. H. Elliott AlbersRegents Professor of Neuroscience and Director of the Center for Behavioral NeuroscienceGeorgia State University

H. Elliott Albers, Ph.D., is Director of the Center for Behavioral Neuroscience and Regents Professor at Georgia State University. The Center is a consortium of metro Atlanta colleges and universities including: Georgia State University, Emory University, Georgia Institute of Technology, Clark Atlanta University, Morehouse College, Morehouse School of Medicine, and Spelman College.

The Center, which began operation in 1999, has received over $53 million from the National Science Foundation and the Georgia Research Alliance.  More than 100 neuroscientists are engaged in the Center’s research programs with the goal of understanding the basic neurobiology of social behaviors. The Center also directs comprehensive educational programs designed to educate the next generation of scientists and the general public.

Dr. Albers has published extensively on the neural basis of behavior, has served on multiple editorial boards and has served as a consultant for more than 30 scientific journals.  His research program has been continuously funded by National Institutes of Health and/or the National Science Foundation for nearly 30 years.

He has been a member of numerous academic and scientific advisory boards and he has served as a liaison between academic institutions and the biotechnology industry.  He has been an advisor to the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, NASA and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.

Before joining Georgia State University in 1986, Dr. Albers was a faculty member at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. He earned his doctorate from Tulane University and completed a post-doctoral fellowship at Harvard Medical School.

Dr. Wendy BaldwinPresident/CEOPopulation Reference Bureau

Wendy Baldwin is president and CEO of PRB. She was vice president and director of the Population Council's Poverty, Gender, and Youth program. At the Population Council, she worked with country directors and professional staff to implement research to improve the future of young people. Prior to joining the Population Council, Baldwin was executive vice president for research at the University of Kentucky from 2003 to 2006; and deputy director for extramural research, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, from 1994 to 2002. From 1972 to 1992,

14

she worked at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. She served as deputy director from 1991 to 1994. During her tenure at NIH, she led the development of programs on adolescent childbearing and sexual behavior and AIDS risk behaviors. Baldwin has served on the boards of directors and advisory boards of a number of government agencies, professional associations, and other organizations including the National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation, Population Association of America, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Baldwin received her Ph.D. in sociology and demography from the University of Kentucky.

Dr. Nicole S. BallengerAssociate Provost, Office of Academic AffairsUniversity of Wyoming

Nicole Ballenger joined University of Wyoming in 2004 as the head of the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics and began serving as associate vice president for Academic Affairs in 2005. She came to UW from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service, where she began her career as an agricultural economist in 1984 and held various research and management positions. From 1993 to 1996 Nicole directed the National Research Council's study of the future of the land grant colleges of agriculture. During 1990 to 1991 she was senior staff economist for agriculture and trade for the President's Council of Economic Advisers.

Nicole received her Ph.D. and M.S. degrees from University of California at Davis and her B.A. degree in economics from University of California at Santa Cruz. Her areas of economic research and analysis have included agricultural policy and trade, Mexican agriculture, linkages between agricultural trade and the environment, agricultural research policy, and the economics of diet and health. Nicole teaches an upper-division undergraduate course on the economics of world food and agriculture, while serving as associate vice president.

Dr. Roberta BalstadSpecial Research Scientist, Earth Institute, Columbia University Editor-in-Chief, Weather, Climate, and Society, American Meteorological Society, Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED)

Roberta Balstad served as CIESIN's director at Columbia until spring 2006. She then became a senior fellow with CIESIN, continuing her research activities as co-PI with ADVANCE and the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED). She is chair of the U.S. National Committee for CODATA (the ICSU Committee on Data for Science and Technology) and a member of the ICSU Committee on Scientific Planning and Review. She also chairs the St. Antony's College Trust (Oxford University) in North America.

Before joining CIESIN, Roberta directed the Division of Social and Economic Sciences at the National Science Foundation. She was the founder and first Executive

15

Director of the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), which mobilized a successful campaign to overturn massive cuts to the social sciences proposed by the Reagan administration in 1981. She has published extensively on science policy, information technology and scientific research, remote sensing applications and policy, and the role of the social sciences in understanding global environmental change. Roberta received her Ph.D. in history from the University of Minnesota.

Dr. Edith ParkerProfessor and DEO, Community and Behavioral HealthDirector, Community Engagement Key Function, Institute for Clinical and Translational ScienceThe University of Iowa

Edith Parker, DrPH is a Professor and head of the Department of Community and Behavioral Health in the University of Iowa College of Public Health. Previously she was Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Michigan School of Public Health and Associate Professor of Health Behavior and Health Education. Her research focuses on the development, implementation and evaluation of community-based participatory interventions to improve health status and reduce health disparities. Her research includes studies focused on women’s and children’s health, childhood asthma, environmental justice, and environmental risk communication. She has directed or co-directed studies funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities.

Dr. Leslie P. TolbertVice President for Research, Graduate Studies, and Economic Development University of Arizona

Leslie Tolbert, Ph.D., is the Vice President for Research, Graduate Studies, and Economic Development of the University of Arizona. In this role, she supports the scholarly and creative activities of the faculty, promotes technology transfer and commercialization, and oversees the graduate programs of the university. Dr. Tolbert received her A.B. and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard University and served on the faculty at Georgetown University’s School of Medicine before moving to the UA in 1987. For over 25 years, she has led an NIH-funded research group that investigates mechanisms underlying the critical role of sensory input in guiding the development of the brain. Her faculty home is in the Arizona Research Labs Division of Neurobiology, and she currently holds a Regents’ Professorship. Dr. Tolbert has served on numerous grant-review committees, as an Associate Editor of the Journal of Comparative Neurology, and as president of the Association of Neuroscience Departments and Programs and of the Association for Chemoreception Sciences. She is active in the AAAS and the Society for Neuroscience and is a member of numerous boards, including those of the Arizona Center for Innovation, the Arizona Technology Council, the Critical Path Institute, the Large Binocular Telescope, Opening Minds Though the Arts, and the Southern Arizona Leadership Council.

16

Dr. Kathie L. Olsen, ChairFounder, Managing Director ScienceWorks, LLC

Kathie L. Olsen is the founder and managing director of ScienceWorks, a consulting firm that helps people and organizations succeed in science and engineering research. Before founding ScienceWorks, Dr. Olsen served over 20 years in the federal government in a variety of administrative and scientific leadership positions including the Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the National Science Foundation (NSF); Associate Director and Deputy Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President; and Chief Scientist for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Acting Associate Administrator for NASA’s Biological and Physical Research Enterprise. She also was the Vice President, International Programs at the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (A ۰ P ۰ L ۰U), a non-profit organization. Dr. Olsen earned a B.S. in Biology and Psychology with honors from Chatham College and Ph.D. in Biology (Neuroscience) from the University of California, Irvine. Following her Postdoctoral Fellowship in the Department of Neuroscience at Children's Hospital of Harvard Medical School, she became an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at the Medical School, as well as Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Microbiology at the George Washington University. Her research on neural and genetic mechanisms underlying development and expression of behavior was supported by the National Institutes of Health. She has served on review panels for U.S. federal agencies including National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and Department of Defense, foreign governments, and UNESCO. Dr. Olsen holds numerous awards, including the Norwegian Royal Order of Merit; government agencies; institutions; and scientific societies. She is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Association for Women in Science and has been awarded four honorary doctoral degrees.

17

Appendix 4

Enhancing Social, Behavioral and Economic Science Research at MSU

Preliminary Thoughts

Nicole Ballenger, University of Wyoming

February 1, 2012

Research grant proposals must be compelling to peer reviewers and grant-program administrators. To be compelling they must address relevant and important problems that fall within the scope of the program priorities, and contain the ingredients for a successful outcome. Among those ingredients are appropriate and state- of- the- art research methods, facilities and equipment, good data or the prospect of collecting them, and a research team that has the right expertise and track record to get the job done. (Another ingredient may be tangible evidence of institutional support for the research.) Note that I say “research team.” It seems to me that almost all funded research in almost all fields is, today, conducted by teams. In many if not most cases, the teams are multidisciplinary—in part because the federal grants programs encourage multidisciplinary efforts, but also because highly complex problems are rarely solved by one discipline. This implies that universities need to cultivate institutional culture, policies and practices, incentives, and infrastructure that provide support for strong research teams. Departments need to collaborate in this effort by pursuing and building cross-departmental relationships (psych and econ = behavioral economics), sponsoring joint appointments (even between different colleges), and rewarding faculty members that contribute to the success of multi-disciplinary programs and teams. This doesn’t mean weakening disciplines or downplaying disciplinary contributions (or making poor tenure decisions just because someone has been a good team player); in fact, successful multidisciplinary efforts require strong disciplinary contributions, not weak ones. Most importantly, strong competitive research teams emerge and prosper when the institution promotes depth in strategic “areas of distinction” that draw from and integrate the expertise of multiple disciplines or departments; and when the faculty members see their own and their departments’ prospects for success enhanced when they link into these institutional priorities. Particularly at smaller research institutions, like mine, a clearly articulated set of institutional priorities that integrate and enhance the strengths of individual departments is critical to research success; most disciplinary departments will be too small to go it alone. (UW’s math department is much more competitive in grant funding now because of its pursuit of cross disciplinary collaborations with computational scientists in engineering, geology, and other disciplines.)

Specific recommendations:

Have a strategic plan (developed with broad based faculty input) that identifies what the university wants to excel in and to be nationally and internationally recognized for. Make the plan widely known internally and externally and refer to it often!

18

Identify the strategic areas of distinction based on existing strengths of faculty, the prospects for investing further in those strengths, and by capitalizing on the institution’s geographic, cultural, and economic setting. Identify areas that will have state support. Think land grant mission!

Don’t try to be equally good at everything, but make it possible for all departments to link into and to participate in one or more of the “areas of distinction.” Don’t pick winning departments or disciplines; do pick themes and areas of scholarship focus that offer institution-wide opportunities for excellence.

Make resource allocation decisions and legislative funding requests based on these institutional priorities. Put the institution’s money where its mouth is!

Reward departments (e.g. with replacement or new positions) when they link position requests into these strategic thrusts.

Provide institution-level research support for areas of distinction. (This is action item 39 in my university’s strategic plan). Research support can include start-up packages for faculty hired into these critical areas, support for developing and writing institutional grant proposals, institution-level commitments of future positions, staffing and administrative support for core research facilities, etc. Academic and Research VPs needs to pay special attention to multidisciplinary programs that cross colleges to ensure they don’t “fall between the cracks.”

Balancing research, teaching, and service

Institutional workload policies are important, but so are smart curricular decisions by departments and wise time allocation decisions by faculty.

Institute guidelines on teaching loads that take research activity level into account. Such guidelines should recognize that that training of graduate students, mentoring of post-docs and undergraduate and graduate students in labs are all forms of teaching. But don’t discount the importance of teaching: it’s the university’s most important mission and basis for public support.

Encourage faculty to find synergies among teaching, research, and service (or extension). In a research university, research should enhance teaching but teaching can also inspire research. Service activities should be carefully chosen to enhance teaching and research accomplishments rather than distract from them. For example, serving on curriculum committees is a contribution to the teaching mission and should “count” as teaching. Serving on the parking fines committee doesn’t count in the same way.

Capitalize on the synergies among teaching, research, and service in grant proposals. Remember that some funding agencies encourage proposals that have extension and education components (e.g. USDA and NSF).

Develop clear and consistent institution-wide released time policies such that departments have the appropriate amount of resources for replacement teaching when faculty are released from a course to work on a research grant.

19

Encourage departments to circumscribe their curricula. Don’t try to teach everything within the discipline. Focus course offerings. Don’t be one deep in faculty who can teach in particular subject areas. If needed, exchange courses with other institutions through organizations such as WICHE.

The importance of strong undergraduate and graduate programs

Teaching and research are synergistic. Strong research programs attract strong graduate students, who in turn support faculty research and are valuable contributors to the teaching workforce. That said, at smaller universities like mine every department can't have a doctoral program, and some fledgling doctoral programs find it’s very difficult to attract high caliber doctoral students such that they may wish they hadn’t taken on the challenge. Multidisciplinary graduate programs (for example, at my institution, ecology, neuroscience, computational sciences, and water resource sciences) offer opportunities for faculty from departments without graduate or doctoral programs to participate in training Ph.d. students. Departments with robust doctoral programs should be encouraged to consider joint degree programs with complementary departments (e.g. ag econ and econ).

Hiring

No academic plan will be any good if an institution doesn’t make strategic hiring decisions that match the plan’s priorities. More important than decisions about what rank to advertise for is tying positions into institutional priorities. At my institution we use a central position management system that unifies the process of identifying position priorities and allocating positions institution wide. The salary dollars freed each year by retirements and resignations are put into a central pot. Departments formulate proposals for replacement or new positions, which must be tied to institutional priorities such as areas of distinction in research, the deans prioritize the requests at the college level, and the college deans meet together with the Provost and the Research VP to review and discuss their requests. With this system, many of the requests are formulated as joint appointments and most are well-linked with institutional priorities. The dollars are also used efficiently in that it’s possible to create new positions if more money is on the vacated salary lines than it takes to replace those lines.

Have an effective approach to formulating and funding start-up packages. Start-up should be a collaborative effort among the departments, colleges, and research office (and possibly the Provost’s office). Indirect cost returns should be an important source of start up.

Have a clear and effective spousal or domestic partner accommodation policy. (This is something I’d be happy to elaborate on.)

Don’t retain poor hires (i.e. ineffective teachers and unproductive researchers) simply to retain positions. The Provost should ensure that no department loses a position if it’s made a tough call on a reappointment or tenure case. Poor tenure decisions can easily stick around for 30 years. And strong research programs aren’t built with weak faculty.

20

Really good senior hires can be magnets for attracting junior hires and graduate students into areas of distinction. But beware of thinking they are “quick fixes.” They are expensive, typically costing two times an entry level hire. They aren’t always motivated to move for the “right” reasons; they come with tenure and if they don’t work out you’ve got them anyway. They can be morale busters too, when they come with fancy titles, extra budgets, and bigger salaries.

Review and reward criteria

After good hiring, there’s nothing more important than good decisions in the reappointment, tenure, and promotion review process. A strong institutional culture of scholarship is critical, with general expectations established at the institutional level and reinforced at the college level, and specific expectations determined at the department level.

Have systematic and regular reviews such that faculty receive clear signals about their progress.

The review process must be clear. Expectations for scholarship, teaching, and service should also be clear. But avoid bean counting. Develop instead profiles of career trajectories that emphasize continual growth in all dimensions of the job. With growth should come greater leadership responsibility, e.g. in developing grant proposal, leading research teams, mentoring junior faculty.

Emphasize “impact” – on the discipline (nationally and internationally), the university learning environment and its scholarship achievements, the advancement of the department within the university, as well as contributions to the success of multidisciplinary graduate and undergraduate programs.

Have a strong culture of post-tenure review. Develop institution-wide expectations for full professors that include leadership of research, mentorship, and institutional impacts. Senior faculty should be expected to have significant impacts beyond their own resumes. Have university level opportunities for senior (or up and coming) faculty to participate in activities that will shape the future of the university.

Don’t be afraid to raise the bar. That’s how departments and universities move ahead.

Turning challenges into opportunities

Take advantage of unique location and sense of place to define distinctiveness.

Take advantage of being relatively small. Being small can mean fewer barriers to the collaborations and multidisciplinary efforts that make the whole greater than the sum of the parts.

Pre-Meeting White PaperH. Elliott Albers

1. Balance between research, teaching and service: A university-wide mission statement and strategic plan should articulate the institution’s goals in research, teaching and service. To achieve these goals the university through its colleges and departments should have a clearly defined mechanism to assign

21

workload to each faculty member based on their interests and strengths. For non-tenured tenure-track faculty this workload should be defined by the expectations of the promotion and tenure committees that will be evaluating the candidate. Tenured faculty should have a more flexible plan recognizing that faculty members will differ in their interests and strengths in research, teaching and service and therefore should have workloads that may differ in their contributions to each of these areas. Since a faculty member’s interests and strength can change over time it is important to have a post-tenure review (e.g., every five years) process so that workload can be re-calibrated to maximize the contribution and work satisfaction of each individual faculty member.

2. Role of highly productive undergraduate and graduate programs in enhancing research competitiveness: Highly productive undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral training programs are essential to enhance research competitiveness.

3. Strategies for recruiting research competitive faculty:

The key to recruiting research competitive faculty is flexibility in discipline and academic rank. As programs become stronger they can afford to be more targeted in discipline and rank.

To increase the research competitiveness of new faculty the start-up packages and salaries often must be better than those of existing faculty or even recently hired faculty; Salary bonuses based on some percentage of their research funding should be given to all faculty

Start-up packages are important but continuing resource support is also critical P & T expectations should be thoroughly discussed, agreed upon and then clearly articulated by

the committees (and administrators) that will be evaluating the candidates

4. Administrative policies and practices that encourage research support for interdisciplinary teams, preliminary data, bridge funding, etc: There are many different administrative policies and practices that can promote research by reducing the hurdles to conducting research (e.g., improving IRB efficiency, pre/post award administration) and providing resources to stimulate research. It is critical to target resources very carefully. For example, it is more effective to provide funding for preliminary data to an investigator who has an application that is close to being funding instead of an investigator who is trying to re-start a research program. Bridge funding is critically important for established investigators. A relatively small amount of bridge funding can often safeguard a huge prior investment in start-up and salary.

One of the most significant impediments to interdisciplinary research is the reward structure. Since universities are organized around disciplines the credit for interdisciplinary research or teaching can become confused and at times a source of controversy. As a result, there must be clear and transparent policies for the distribution of credit (i.e., funds, teaching credits, etc.) for interdisciplinary projects and structures (e.g. interdisciplinary centers). There is no single set of operating policies suited to all institutions because the missions, cultures, histories and stage of development of institutions differ substantially. As a result, the policies must be crafted for each institution by stake holders at all levels of the institution.

5. Incentives for departments to support grant-funded faculty: Typically, these incentives are financial. If the department budget increases with increasing levels of grant funding then there should be a strong incentive to support grant-funded faculty. This is most frequently accomplished with the recovery of some percentage of indirect costs. While it is clearly important that the faculty that bring in the grant funding are rewarded for doing so it is also important that the department as a whole is rewarded.

22

6. Mechanisms, such as review and reward criteria, to encourage successful interdisciplinary research and to include SBE faculty in project leadership roles: The successful development of interdisciplinary activities is a bottom up phenomenon. As such, the leadership of these types of activities must come from the faculty. Certainly, faculty can be encouraged to take the leap of organizing interdisciplinary groups by reduced workloads or other incentives but the vision and passion must be there for it to become a reality.

7. Recommendations for turning MSU challenges into opportunities: Need to know more.

___________________________________________________________________________

Thoughts on Enhancing Social, Behavioral and Economic Science Research at MSU- Parker

1. Appropriate Balance Between Research, Teaching, and Service-

Strong research productivity (be it externally funded or not) contributes greatly to a faculty member’s teaching and sometimes service. My research is integral to my classroom teaching and also my research projects afford opportunities for my master’s and doctoral students to get real experience in the research process. That said, it is important to note that the institutions where I have been a faculty member have a modest requirement for classroom teaching, compared to other institutions. The University of Michigan School of Public Health had only masters and doctoral students enrolled, and faculty were expected to teach 4 courses a year- 3 didactic and the 4th in independent studies, doctoral dissertation committees, etc. Most faculty taught 2 courses and bought out of the 3 rd with research dollars and some senior faculty, who had re-allocated their research, teaching and service allotment to account for more research, taught only one course and bought out of two. At the University of Iowa College of Public Health, faculty are expected to teach two didactic courses a year and can negotiate with their departmental chair, to get a reduced teaching load if there are heavily externally funded . The flexibility of re-allocation of teaching vs. research at both of these institutions has been key to helping build success in research.

2. Strategies for hiring/recruiting-

We’re currently doing several searches in my department and though we have sought to get more experienced faculty with already existing research experience and funding, we have not been successful in getting those folks to leave their current departments and join us. (I should note that our College has a requirement that faculty fund 50% of their 12 month salary, which gives extra impetus for recruiting more senior faculty who may already have grant funding to cover that percentage, given that it will take a few years for junior faculty to reach that level of funding). However, we have been able to recruit some terrific young faculty who I think will be very successful in externally funded research and their teaching. They have all been trained at Universities with a strong emphasis on externally funded research among their faculty so have been exposed to the demands and rewards of external research funding and have been mentored by faculty who have balanced the demands of research, teaching and service. These hires have requested and received start-up funds from the University, as do faculty at my previous institution, and I believe that the existence of start-up funds is key for providing resources for

23

the faculty to succeed at research. (I also believe that the awarding of start-up funds from the University or College are key, as, depending on the budget model and how the F & A and tuition streams are handled, departments may not have the discretionary funds for support of their faculty’s start-up funds).

2. Salaries/Salary Saving/Discretionary Account –

I’m not as clear on the MSU model for salary support for those who bring in external funds and look forward to hearing more about that. Obviously, one of the challenges of all of our institutions is keeping salaries competitive, both for starting faculty and also current faculty. To attract and retain good faculty, as well as to entice current faculty to “do more” in terms of external research, salary levels have to be competitive nationally. Michigan was extremely competitive with salaries, Iowa, less so. I am not sure where MSU is, in terms of national salary levels, but this is a problem we are facing at Iowa and certainly something that has to be considered in increasing external research.

Incentives that I have been exposed to include summer salary for nine month appointments, salary savings that can be available to faculty as discretionary accounts, and a bonus program for faculty who were PIs on externally funded projects. The bonus incentive program awarded those faculty who were PI of an externally funded project and who had an annual merit review score of 4 or more (based on yearly progress in teaching, research and service), with a lump sum “bonus”.

3. Resources to Facilitate Research- Resources to support and facilitate SBE research, for example, pre-grant support, post-award grant management, and space for research staff must be considered and provided. Start-up funds, both for new hires, but also for existing faculty who might not have been as active in externally funded research but would like to become more active must also be considered.

Wendy Baldwin: Montana white paper – or white paragraph

A key challenge for a university is to respond to the clear need for interdisciplinary research. This need has been articulated by major funders – NIH and NSF. It is the role of the institution to develop strategies that foster such work, reward faculty appropriately, and thereby improve their competitiveness. This is not an easy task in most university settings. There are the obvious challenges of many demands of faculty time, increased competition for external funding (which raises everyone’s blood pressure a bit), and the financial constraints faced by most universities.

I have no proposals to create 36 hour days or improve the economy, but there are some things that can be considered. Faculty, in their roles as employees, members of their profession and human beings, need assurances that they will receive appropriate credit for their work. Credit seems to come in several forms. Acknowledgement of contribution to an interdisciplinary project can seem elusive if only the PI is acknowledged in university reporting of grants awarded. Simply ensuring that each significant

24

member of a team has visibility may obviate some of that concern. Reporting systems are created by institutions and it is therefore their obligation to ensure that the reporting style does not disadvantage anyone.

This becomes trickier if those reporting systems also include the dollar value of the project. In that case, it could appear that there were “double counting” if the total figure of the award is listed for each member of a team. On the other hand, parsing our how much to attribute to each person is very challenging and actually runs counter to the underlying principle (that all members of the team contributed to the success). One strategy could be to list the grant for each person and asterisk the figure to note that it is reported more than once and alert people that they should not be adding up the numbers. But, where the goal is acknowledging the multiple contributions, there is much value in ensuring that the written record (and publicity) is inclusive of all who made it happen.

An extension of this issue is when one department chair finds that his/her faculty are now working on projects that appear to be “credited” to a different department because the PI resides in the other department. Again, these reporting systems and “crediting” processes are created by the institutions and can generally be made responsive to the legitimate need for broad recognition of contributions.

The more difficult challenge comes from attributing indirect cost recovery and providing access to such funds. A key starting point is transparency about where the funds come from and what they are used for. That helps faculty and administrators understand what is then available. For example, if there is no hard funding available for supporting the human subjects compliance activities then they are likely to be supported through indirect cost recovery. That diminishes the IDC available for other purposes,but without HS systems the university (and the faculty) simply cannot participate in human subject research. The need for that system of review and oversight is not negotiable and must be funded some way. It is useful to have the full array of such essential services known to ward off individuals declaring that they don’t use that particular service, so why should their (and I use the term “their” loosely) IDC recovery be used to support it. there must be an understanding of the core functions that a research office must provide and the strategies for paying for such functions.

The next challenge is to move beyond the essential functions and develop appropriate strategies for return of recovered indirects. One approach is a fixed and variable return model. On the basis that a university research enterprise must thrive as a whole and that some areas of research have more funding opportunities, a basic amount can be returned to all entities as a baseline. The remainder can be provided proportional to the amount actually recovered.

The next question goes to where that recovery goes, is it to individual researchers or departments or some other organizational structure. It is useful to recall that the underlying premise is that indirect costs are real costs but ones that are difficult to attribute to specific projects. It is probably a risky path to allow researchers to low ball their grant budgets and then have them expect to make up the difference through a share of the indirects.

_ Items for Montana State U. SBES External Advisory Committee reportLeslie Tolbert

25

Feb.2-3, 2012

Administrative policies that provide incentives for interdisciplinary research

1. Differentiated faculty workloads that allow faculty to develop research programs

An effective perspective is for each unit (college, department) to meet its research-teaching-service mission not by expecting equal contributions in each area from each faculty member, but by allowing different distributions of effort by different faculty, and even for individual faculty, allowing changes in that distribution over time; the aggregate sum of efforts across faculty produces the unit’s “output” toward meeting its mission. When a faculty member, new or more seasoned, is working to develop a research program, allow him or her to increase the “research” effort for one to a few years, at the expense of teaching and/or service. When the research is humming along, allow – or expect – the faculty member to shift some effort to “teaching” to develop a new course or to “service” to chair a national advisory group, etc. If research funding ends, for instance late in career, expect the faculty member to decrease the percent effort devoted to research and to step up to the plate in carrying more of the teaching or service burden, so that other faculty can concentrate on their research.

A key in this approach is that faculty have their performance evaluated in relation to their formally agreed upon distribution of effort. For instance, if a faculty member negotiated a 60% research/20% teaching/20% service effort distribution for a year, that year’s performance evaluation would put 60% weight on research excellence. If research was only 30% of the effort, a high performance evaluation would require excellence in teaching or service. Whether or not financial rewards follow assessments of performance excellence in every year, faculty appreciate the fairness of this approach and feel valued for what they do. If the culture is to negotiate the differentiated workloads each year, the department head also has an easier time of dealing with faculty whose research is tapering off and who would be a drain on the department if they were just to “coast to retirement.” The expectation is that every faculty member bears a fair share of responsibility to help the department meet its obligations, and that the conversation about this occurs every year. Research-inactive faculty can take up the brunt of teaching to allow others to pursue research (and vice versa).

At the University of Arizona, this approach has been very effective in some colleges. Agriculture and Life Sciences led the way, as the responsibility for extension outreach is borne disproportionately by a subset of faculty. Their approach, allowing individuals to negotiate with their department head each year for a particular distribution of effort, gives the department control over how to meet its overall mission and gives the faculty the opportunity to change focus over time and grow in directions that suit the individual. The model has spread to multiple colleges and works well. We are trying to extend it into all colleges in the coming year.

2. Team teaching

26

Team teaching in courses is an excellent way to accomplish several goals:- maximizing efficiency, minimizing duplication of teaching effort within and across departments, so that teaching loads are less burdensome overall;- increasing the interdisciplinary content of courses, both for undergraduates and for graduate students; - increasing conversation among faculty of different backgrounds, which can lead to interdisciplinary research collaborations;- providing access to teaching for interested faculty from units that don’t themselves have particular majors or graduate degrees.

3. Shared core facilities

Shared, multi-user core facilities for high-end instrumentation or other technical support can be an excellent way to bring new technologies to a research community. Pooling resources from colleges and adding some from central administration is an economic way to provide researchers access to techniques and technologies that bring their work to the forefront nationally or internationally. This in turn helps them to be more competitive for external funding.

At the University of Arizona, the Vice President for Research uses her limited pool of indirect cost return (ICR) dollars to partner with college deans in supporting the purchase of instruments and the provision of expert technical assistance in the use of the instruments. Most commonly, these university dollars are used as a match on a federal or foundation grant, but occasionally we will simply buy a smaller piece of equipment. The running costs of such facilities can be high, and, while some ongoing central subsidy is almost always required, we charge user fees to help cover the costs. When users from outside the university community can be attracted to use the facilities, our fee rate to them is generally much higher than to internal users, as we expect them to pay the full cost of their use. Most typically, VPR funds will cover one technician in a large facility, and any additional personnel will be covered by user fees, as will service contracts and upgrades for instrumentation. We find it very important that each facility have an expert technical leader, who can help faculty, students, and staff learn how to get the most out of the facility. It also is useful for there to be a faculty leader and a user group to provide oversight.

Decisions about what facilities to support are made in consultation with leading faculty and with deans, and the VPR makes a special effort when negotiating start-up packages for new faculty to consider whether the instruments they need can be accessed in existing core facilities or can form the basis for a new core facility, rather than sitting in a single faculty member’s laboratory.

A side effect of creating shared facilities is that they become hubs for interdisciplinary collaboration. Some of those collaborations arise serendipitously out of the random contacts that occur among facility users.

For social and behavioral sciences, shared cores can include computational or informatics capabilities, and translational clinical core facilities for human-subject research.

27

4. Distribution of indirect cost return

ICR revenues represent payment for actual communal expenses of conducting research, and yet they have a flexibility in their allowed uses that make them attractive to deans and to faculty. Each university handles them differently, but almost always some go back to the college that generated them. The colleges then usually distribute some to the departments in proportion to what they earned, and departments in turn sometimes give some directly back to the individual investigator who generated them. That last step is most common in medical schools, but even there is not done now as frequently as in the past.

An effective way to use ICR is for the colleges to invest at least some of their ICR share in direct support of research, either for an equipment refresh fund or for travel to conferences – and almost always for some portion of start-up packages for new faculty.

(In my view, giving a portion of the ICR directly back to faculty is not wise. At Arizona, some faculty “hoard” it for the rainy day that never comes, so that those dollars are out of circulation – but more importantly it makes for a strong “haves” and “have nots” culture that can be divisive. Better to let the ICR that a department generates be viewed as a general good, in support of the notion that differentiated faculty workloads combine to make one strong department.)

Undergraduate research opportunities and challenges

MSU has the laudable goal of giving every undergraduate a hands-on research experience. Carrying this practice from the natural sciences into the social sciences could bring about a significant culture change in universities. Some students can be supported on faculty research grants. The added benefit of departmental or programmatic funds from (scarce) federal or private grants or from ICR return or philanthropic contributions for student support can help to develop a culture of inquiry and exploration among students – and can bring faculty together in selecting and advising research students.

Roles of graduate students/their impact on research

Like many other universities across the country, MSU is considering whether every department needs to have a graduate program. It seems clear that the answer is no – that there are some disciplines that need to be present to teach undergraduate courses, but need not have their own graduate programs. An effective mechanism for providing graduate education, and faculty access to graduate students, is to develop cross-department or cross-college graduate interdisciplinary programs (GIDPs).

The University of Arizona has offered GIDPs for over 25 years. At any given time, we have between 15 and 20, and many of them are among our top-performing graduate programs. They tend to me more selective than department-based programs, and tend to attract active research faculty. Not only do they offer graduate courses, but they also are a focus for journal clubs, seminar series, and “data blitzes” (at

28

which faculty, students, postdocs, and visitors give 5-minute presentations of their work for critique), all of which promote interdisciplinary research collaboration and cooperation.

Integrating social science research into land-grant mission and into STEM-related research projects/strategic hires

1. Land-grant missionMSU is Montana’s land-grant institution. Land-grant was historically interpreted to mean a focus on engineering and agriculture, but now most modern land-grant universities promote a broader connection between research/education and the broader local economy. The social sciences have a large role to play in virtually any area of land-grant focus.

2. Broad interdisciplinary institutes

Bringing social scientists into leadership roles in interdisciplinary research can be very effective. The University of Arizona recruited Dr. Diana Liverman from Oxford University to co-direct the university’s new Institute of the Environment. As a social scientist interested in the disproportionate impact of climate change on the world’s poor, she neatly complements her co-director, Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, a geologist with particular interest in the record of climate change evidenced in Himalayan ice cores. Their joint leadership makes clear to all that the Institute is about the full range of issues related to environmental sustainability. Using some funds distributed to them from the VPR’s office, they provide seed grants in the broad range of relevant areas, helping to create the teams that can put together highly competitive grant proposals for federal and other external funds.

3. Strategic hiring mechanisms

In these severely budget-constrained times, universities have to be very strategic in their faculty hiring practices if they want to enhance their research prominence. Hiring has to be done in the most cost-effective ways that will promote growth in their research programs. They won’t hire across the board, but instead will focus in areas of particular promise, either because of existing excellence, or because of a clear opportunity if only a particular gap is filled. One effective mechanism is to hire in clusters. If some excellence already exists in a targeted area, then a cluster of junior hires, perhaps spread across several departments and even colleges, can be effective, as the university then grows its own “stars.” In a new area, the cluster might have to include one or two senior “star” investigators, along with a few junior faculty.

The University of Arizona’s Institute of the Environment is an example of a new institute created with the hire of a very senior social-science faculty member, Diana Liverman, to complement an existing star in Geosciences as co-directors of the Institute. They have used Institute dollars to help hire over 20 new faculty across the campus, mostly at the assistant and associate professor levels, who are hired both into a home department and into the interdisciplinary Institute. The Institute provides a collegial set of colleagues who are potential mentors and collaborators.

29

Incentives for interdisciplinary teaching and research

The University of Arizona has in place two very effective mechanisms for promoting interdisciplinary teaching and research:

1. Faculty accrue credit for teaching no matter where they teach. In other words, if faculty from four departments share equally in team-teaching a course that is offered out of one of their departments, each of the four of them gets 25% of the teaching credit for that course. This is unusual, in that at most universities the home department for the course would receive all the credit, and in that case the instructors from other departments would have just “volunteered.”

2. When a student in a graduate interdisciplinary program (GIDP) earns a Ph.D., that degree is credited not only to the GIDP but also to the major advisor’s home department. For performance review purposes, each entity “counts” that Ph.D. as one of its successes. This minimizes the tension for faculty being asked to “produce” for their home department, when they feel that students would benefit more from being in a GIDP.

____________________________

30

Appendix 5

MemorandumTo: Thomas J. McCoy, VP for Research, Creativity & Technology Transfer, Montana State

University

CC: Susanne C. Monahan, Montana State University

From: Kathie L. Olsen, Founder and Managing Director, ScienceWorks

Date: August 15, 2011

Re: Enhancing the Social Science Research Agenda

Goal

To enhance extramural supported social and behavioral science research at Montana State University (MSU) in order to become more competitive on a national scale which results in an increased international recognition of the faculty, staff, and students.

Background

In January 2009, the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences issued a report entitled “Social, Behavioral and Economic Research in the Federal Context”. The report highlights opportunities where focused social science research can impact on societal challenges including health, education, human and natural disasters, creativity and innovation to long-term sustainability of civilization within Earth’s ecosystems. The report identifies immediate and future research areas supported across the federal government that call for participation from anthropologists, archaeologists, cognitive and neuroscientists, psychologists, economists, sociologists, linguists, political scientists and others to provide a deeper knowledge into the understanding of humans.

While a wide array of federal agencies support social, behavioral and economic (SBE) research, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) are the major funders with the most diverse programs and opportunities. Within NIH is the Office of Behavioral and Science Research that serves to stimulate the growth of behavioral and social sciences across the Institutes. Examples of social and behavioral science research supported by NIH include language development, learning and memory, vulnerability and resilience, emotion and motivation, social influences and social cognition, family processes and social networks, gene by environment interactions, cognitive and social neurosciences, and development of new measurement procedures for behavioral and social phenomena.

31

Likewise, the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences at the NSF support fundamental research and education activities in social behavioral and economic sciences that impact society including learning theories, anthropology, human behavior, social and economic systems, complex adaptive systems, environmental sciences, linguistics and cognitive neuroscience. Both NIH and NSF strongly encourage multi-disciplinary team approaches to solve complex social and behavioral problems. Funding opportunities include “Centers”, undergraduate curriculum development, undergraduate research opportunities, graduate fellowships and training, and acquisition of major equipment.

MSU recognizes the importance of the social and behavioral sciences within these fundamental areas and also its increasing important role in collaborating and integrating across other scientific and engineering disciplines, especially in the support of the university’s research and education centers.

In response to a request by MSU, ScienceWorks proposed a two-step process towards enhancing social sciences research in Montana. The first step is to organize a visit by an external advisory committee to meet with faculty, their departments and their schools interested in conducting, or already conducting SBE science research at MSU. This visit would produce a report that identifies strengths, potential gaps, and areas of opportunities. The aim is to provide relevant feedback that could be used for subsequent development of a “Social Science” strategic plan and roadmap for success in securing extramural funding. The second step is to assist in organizing a “Research Fair” that brings faculty and students together with program directors across federal agencies, industry and foundations that provide support for social science research and education. The aim of the workshop is to educate the funders as to the strengths of the faculty and to provide faculty with in depth knowledge of the funding agencies and their programs. Upon hearing of this activity and that UM was also supporting a SBE science initiative, the decision was made for the two universities to work together to enhance SBE research and education across the two campuses. This report summarizes findings at MSU.

MSU’s VP for Research identified Dr. Susanne C. Monahan, former chair of the Department of Sociology & Anthropology, to assist ScienceWorks and to help coordinate campus activities.

Following several conference calls, a decision was made for MSU to organize on-site meetings with faculty members, chairs, and deans in the appropriate departments. The aim was to gain a better understanding of the kinds of SBE science research being conducted at MSU, learn about potential new directions and identify issues that may impede greater success in securing outside funding. Based on the findings from the campus meetings, Dr. Olsen and Dr. Monahan would propose next steps for consideration by the VP for Research. Similar meetings were planned for UM, coordinated by Dr. Kari Harris, Dr. Blakely Brown and Dr. Craig Ravesloot.

Campus Visits

Enclosed are the agendas for the meetings held at UM on June 27-28 and MSU on June 29-30. To enhance the knowledge of the team, Dr. Monahan attended the meetings at UM (June 29 th) along with Drs. Harris, Blakely and Ravesloot, and Dr. Harris (June 29 th) and Dr. Brown (June 30th) attended the meetings with Dr. Monahan at MSU. We also met together several times during the visit for discussion and summarizing the findings.

Summary of Findings

In general, there is a strong consensus of support for the administration’s focus on enhancing external support of SBE sciences within its own discipline and through its involvement in the campus’ interdisciplinary programs, centers and institutes. It is also important campus-wide to re-articulate the message of the value of conducting external-funded research for the students, faculty, departments,

32

schools and institution and how it relates to each University’s long-term strategic plan. The prevalent issue facing the social and behavioral scientists is the balance between the cost and benefits of conducting external funded research for both the faculty and the departments. If these issues are addressed, the ability of the faculty to pursue and conduct external research in SBE could be significantly strengthened. With respect to interdisciplinary research, centers, and institutes, it was very important that SBE faculty are brought in at the planning stages and are considered to be a valuable component and not an afterthought or an add-on to enhance the probability of external support.

While both UM and MSU have similar challenges (e.g. balance between teaching, service and research; post-award support mechanisms; mentoring on grantsmanship), there are some matters that were more urgent or pressing depending upon the campus and/or department. In general, one needs to identify best practices to increase proximal incentives for grant preparation, submission and conductance of research while reducing the institutional barriers.

Included below are points and suggestions that were raised during the four-days of discussion. The order does not equate to any priority or weight of importance. Moreover, there is overlap between some of the items. It is also clear that some items can be easily addressed and resolved whereas others are inherent to any university setting. While it may seem like an undaunting “laundry list”, it is very important to acknowledge the input received during these meetings and then to focus subsequent discussions on identifying potential options and solutions, if warranted.

1. Increase proximal incentives for grant preparation & submission and conducting SBE grant-funded research

a. Department i. Explore incentives for departments to have grant-funded faculty within their department.

Are the IDC distribution practice/policy widely understood to faculty? Do they benefit the individual researcher, students, and department? Recent changes in IDC policy at MSU have fostered a belief that the practice may possibly adversely effects smaller departments with less external support.

ii. Review which courses taught and how they are taught (including reviewing use of TAs) to overall reduce faculty teaching duties and enhance return. Explore overlap across departments where similar types of courses could be combined and/or revised to fit the needs across social sciences. Consider limiting admissions of students/graduate students in some departments.

iii. Increase team teaching opportunities to consolidate teaching time.iv. Increase flexibility in distribution of academic duties (example: one department at MSU

assigns lower teaching loads to incoming faculty and faculty who continue to be research active).

v. Provide sufficient start up packages for new faculty to begin their independent research program with the written expectation that securing external research support is important in consideration of tenure and promotion.

vi. Review IDC allocation and other resource allocation to reward departments for faculty who conduct interdisciplinary research.

vii. Explore possibility of dedicated laboratory space for SBE research. viii. Establish and reward mentoring activities by integrating research faculty more fully into

department activities to assist other faculty in conducting research and increase satisfaction of research faculty.

b. Faculty

33

i. Increase opportunities for faculty compensation (research rate, extra compensation, salary ranges). Develop a list of best practices adopted by state universities —like the CA delta system model and other proven mechanisms.

ii. Increase faculty allocation of discretionary research funds (IDC returns to investigators 0% in some units, return on vacancy savings).

iii. Provide university recognition (public awards, receptions and/or special events over meals, letters from the President, etc) for grant submissions and grants awarded.

iv. Provide recognition, respect, and a financial safety net for long-term research faculty who are soft-money funded. Integrate research faculty more fully into department activities to assist other faculty in conducting research and increase satisfaction of research faculty.

v. Integrate research faculty more fully into department activities to assist other faculty in conducting research and increase satisfaction of research faculty.

2. Reduce institutional barriers for grant preparation and conducting grant-funded research

a. Grant Writingi. Logistical assistance- assistance with budgeting, writing non-science grant sections,

imputing budget and documents into e-submission systems.ii. Content assistance- bring to campus expert consultants and program officials, provide

expert reviews of applications (MSU already has consultants on contract for this but may not be readily known by faculty who are beginning to prepare grant applications).

b. Grant-funded Research Implementation Phasei. Provide high level of grant accounting, including long-range budget projections, cost

transfers, personnel forms, grant status reports, etc. VPRD to provide training. Until the schools and/or departments have sufficient amount of external support to FTE’s solely dedicated to grants management, centralize the function and/or provide oversight and training.

ii. Provide greater assistance with purchasing and personnel management.

3. Institutional and Departmental Activities

a. Establish an external advisory board comprised of SBE senior investigators who meet regularly and visit both campuses to advise administrators and faculty about strategies to increase extramural funding for SBE activities. Invite program officers to provide advice on grantsmanship and priorities within their programs and agencies. Be inclusive to include federal, state, foundations and for-profits, entities that support research opportunities and collaborations.

b. Incentivize faculty that have proven track records of securing external support to mentor faculty submitting their first SBE grant proposals.

Part of the goal of the four-day visit was to look at opportunities to build stronger liaisons between UM and MSU in the SBE arena. EPSCoR has been successful in building interdisciplinary teams within the natural sciences across the campuses. Moreover, some disciplines and/or departments routinely meet (e.g. neuroscience; ecological sciences) and have discussed possibilities of collaborating on research and education including co-advisors for graduate students. Encouragement for similar activities between departments and/or groups within SBE would be beneficial. For example, both universities have small but very strong anthropology departments. Encouraging a retreat between faculty and students and inviting a keynote speaker from the NSF may be beneficial for building even stronger research opportunities and forge new collaborations.

34

Another area where both UM and MSU have very strong programs and external funded research is in the area of rural and community health, especially with a focus on Native American population. This is a unique niche for Montana and possibly there are grant opportunities from Health and Human Services (NIH) and Department of Defense (VA) where working together on cross disciplinary collaborative research programs provides an even greater competitive advantage to gain support. Recent changes at the Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council for obtaining human subjects IRB approval for conducting research in Montana Indian country needs to be an integral part of this conversation.

Recommendations for Follow-up

1. Set up a temporary infrastructure to handle the management of grant preparation and submission and the post grant awards until the schools and/or departments reach a critical mass.

2. Plan and carry out a SBE ‘retreat’ for Tuesday, August 23, 2011. The retreat will be the first step towards developing an SBE strategic vision and plan along with a roadmap to succeed in enhancing external support. One goal is to assemble information needed to assist an external advisory committee in providing constructive feedback to MSU. Participants will include the deans, chairs and faculty members from SBE departments. The format will be both invited talks and breakout sessions. It is envisioned that each department will provide a short overview of their research and education activities and strengths. The breakout sessions will be used to gather feedback on issues identified in this report as well as others that will help develop more robust research programs and activities.

Preparation for Visit by an External Advisory Committee

The types of information that an External Committee will expect and/or need to be successful in their deliberations was briefly discussed. For example it is expected that the Committee will need to gain an understanding of the present organization; its future recruiting opportunities, and the institution’s policy and/or practice on incentives for extramural research.

For example, items to assist in understanding where the University is now could include organization charts, list of departments and faculty research areas both disciplinary and interdisciplinary, list of internal and external funding, teaching and training responsibilities including both at the undergraduate and graduate (Masters/Ph.D.) levels. Information on future recruiting could include number and type of potential positions, practice on cross-departmental or center recruiting, start-up packages, expectations for faculty prior to and post-tenure. One goal of the external committee will be to provide their knowledge about different models for success in enhancing the integration of research and education and energizing external support.

35

36